Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.
The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.
That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.
Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.
You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.